Ethics Case Study I chose the case study 17, The Public Needs to Know. Don’t They? This case is about the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) laws of privacy. These laws state the following “Any healthcare provider that electronically stores, processes or transmits medical records, medical claims, remittances, or certifications must comply with HIPAA regulations. HIPAA does not require a practice to purchase a computer-based system as it applies only to electronic medical transactions.
It is the responsibility of the person who is performing the ECG to ensure they provide the Doctors with a legible and accurate ECG recording. This will avoid misinterpretation of the ECG and also prevent any mismanagement of care provided for the patient. The staff performing the ECG must ensure the Doctors are aware the ECG has been done and needs assessing in order to promote prompt action and effective care for the patient. This should be documented on Paris. Interpretation of the ECG reading is the responsibility of the Doctors not the nursing/ care support staff.
In the article by Garrett, Baillie, McGeehan, and Garrett (2010), the health care professional’s obligation is to “provide the health care information and leadership to ensure that this distribution is accomplished in ways that allow the goals of health care to be achieved” (p. 71). Although the physician informed Ms. Selbstmord of the lifestyle changes she needed in order to improve her condition, he failed to inform her of other important treatment options. The physician decided against prescribing Ms. Selbstmord a medication for asthma because of the side effects that would result. However, the principle of double effect of nonmaleficence would suggest that improvement of her asthma by the medication would create more good than the harm of the side effects so it should have been given as an option for the patient to decide. If the health care professional would have provided Ms. Selbstmord of all of the options for treatment and their consequences, it would become Ms. Selbstmord’s responsibility if whether or not her condition improved or worsened.
We all have an idea that the act was an unlawful one, to handle another human beings life as something we can take control over whenever we see fit. From an ethical standpoint, I can understand how the doctors did what was done, but moral they had no right to make a unanimous decision to end lives. The laws may vary from state to state the U.S. Supreme Court has walked into this arena, but the end effect has been to let the state decide what to do. “The Hippocratic Oath, traditionally taken by doctors, states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, or give advice which may cause his death” Hippocrates (c. 460 BCÐ380
This is definitely unethical. When more than a minor medical issue arises, the ethical thing for the physician assistant to do is take the patient to a practical setting and take the normal course of actions (2013). Joe is breaking this by taking kits out of the practice area into his own home without consent of the physician or the facility as a whole. The guidelines go over the importance of not providing informal care, which is exactly what Joe is doing in this situation. He is not only informally treating and collecting specimen from his daughter, but he is also not documenting any of the treatments that he is doing.
In his thinking, it did not matter that there was no scientific evidence. The fact that there is no scientific evidence linking serious health problems to DDT contamination also proves that there is so evidence to the contrary. What really sets the Triana lawsuit apart from the others, was a plan proposed by Foster. He wanted to protect the people of Triana from any negative affects of DDT in the present and in the future, so he proposed that Olin establish a healthcare program for all residents that were exposed to DDT. In addition, the lawsuit would also require Olin to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss of income.
Although they believe that no one should end another person’s life by “giving deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest any such counsel,” (Hippocrates, Father of Mother Medicine) they also agree that exceptions will always exist. In such cases, they accept that passive euthanasia is sometimes right because it entails the withholding of a treatment that a patient needs in order to stay alive, surely with the consent of the patient. Thus, their focus on the issue is not to change the law, but rather improve standards of care. Doctors should give their best to prevent death, but they should not force treatment upon dying patients just for the sake of their Hippocratic
Doctors should also avoid taking on too many shifts that hinder them from concentrating on their work. It is the work of management to observe patients who have problems with substance abuse to ensure they do not prescribe any medication to patients. This will help hospitals avoid legal problems with their
Although it did not carry the force of law, the Nuremberg Code was the first international document which advocated voluntary participation and informed consent. In the traditional Hippocratic doctor–patient relationship, the patient is silent and dutifully obedient to the beneficent and trusted physician. Obviously, the patient must seek the physician's help and initiate the therapeutic relationship with the physician. But once patients agree to be treated, they trust that the physician will act in their interest, or at least will do no harm. In research, which is outside the beneficent context of the
Being a travel nurse, I do not feel comfortable adhering to this standard. In one instance, I did not allow the sedation until a physician was present. Looking back, I would not have done anything differently because the most important concept is patient safety. Giving sedation prior to a call-to-order, or time-out, is not focused on patient safety. One article detailed that when given an ethical dilemma it is important to “engage in a process of ethical analysis†(Chaloner, 2007, p.43).